stable.README #49
Open
stable.README #49
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
xen0n
pushed a commit
to xen0n/gcc
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 26, 2021
Co-authored-by: Yang Yujie <yangyujie@loongson.cn>
nstester
pushed a commit
to nstester/gcc
that referenced
this pull request
May 15, 2023
..., and enable if 'flock' is available for serializing execution testing.
Regarding the default of 19 parallel slots, this turned out to be a local
minimum for wall time when testing this on:
$ uname -srvi
Linux 4.2.0-42-generic gcc-mirror#49~14.04.1-Ubuntu SMP Wed Jun 29 20:22:11 UTC 2016 x86_64
$ grep '^model name' < /proc/cpuinfo | uniq -c
32 model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2640 v3 @ 2.60GHz
... in two configurations: case (a) standard configuration, no offloading
configured, case (b) offloading for GCN and nvptx configured but no devices
available. For both cases, default plus '-m32' variant.
$ \time make check-target-libgomp RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix\{,-m32\}"
Case (a), baseline:
6432.23user 332.38system 47:32.28elapsed 237%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505044maxresident)k
6382.43user 319.21system 47:06.04elapsed 237%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505172maxresident)k
This is what people have been complaining about, rightly so, in
<https://gcc.gnu.org/PR66005> "libgomp make check time is excessive" and
elsewhere.
Case (a), parallelized:
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=10
3088.49user 267.74system 6:43.82elapsed 831%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505188maxresident)k
-j15 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=15
3308.08user 294.79system 5:56.04elapsed 1011%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505360maxresident)k
-j17 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=17
3539.93user 298.99system 5:27.86elapsed 1170%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505112maxresident)k
-j18 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=18
3697.50user 317.18system 5:14.63elapsed 1275%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505360maxresident)k
-j19 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=19
3765.94user 324.27system 5:13.22elapsed 1305%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505128maxresident)k
-j20 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=20
3684.66user 312.32system 5:15.26elapsed 1267%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505100maxresident)k
-j23 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=23
4040.59user 347.10system 5:29.12elapsed 1333%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505200maxresident)k
-j26 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=26
3973.24user 377.96system 5:24.70elapsed 1340%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505160maxresident)k
-j32 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=32
4004.42user 346.10system 5:16.11elapsed 1376%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505160maxresident)k
Yay!
Case (b), baseline; 2+ h:
7227.58user 700.54system 2:14:33elapsed 98%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 994264maxresident)k
Case (b), parallelized:
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=10
7377.46user 777.52system 16:06.63elapsed 843%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 994344maxresident)k
-j15 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=15
8019.18user 721.42system 12:13.56elapsed 1191%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 994228maxresident)k
-j17 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=17
8530.11user 716.95system 10:45.92elapsed 1431%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 994176maxresident)k
-j18 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=18
8776.79user 645.89system 10:27.20elapsed 1502%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 994248maxresident)k
-j19 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=19
9332.37user 641.76system 10:15.09elapsed 1621%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 994260maxresident)k
-j20 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=20
9609.54user 789.88system 10:26.94elapsed 1658%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 994284maxresident)k
-j23 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=23
10362.40user 911.14system 10:44.47elapsed 1749%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 994208maxresident)k
-j26 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=26
11159.44user 850.99system 11:09.25elapsed 1794%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 994256maxresident)k
-j32 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=32
11453.50user 939.52system 11:00.38elapsed 1876%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 994240maxresident)k
On my Dell Precision 7530 laptop:
$ uname -srvi
Linux 5.15.0-71-generic gcc-mirror#78-Ubuntu SMP Tue Apr 18 09:00:29 UTC 2023 x86_64
$ grep '^model name' < /proc/cpuinfo | uniq -c
12 model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-8850H CPU @ 2.60GHz
$ nvidia-smi -L
GPU 0: Quadro P1000 (UUID: GPU-e043973b-b52a-d02b-c066-a8fdbf64e8ea)
... in two configurations: case (c) standard configuration, no offloading
configured, case (d) offloading for nvptx configured and device available.
For both cases, only default variant, no '-m32'.
$ \time make check-target-libgomp
Case (c), baseline; roughly half of case (a) (just one variant):
1180.98user 110.80system 19:36.40elapsed 109%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505148maxresident)k
1133.22user 111.08system 19:35.75elapsed 105%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505212maxresident)k
Case (c), parallelized:
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=2
1143.83user 110.76system 10:20.46elapsed 202%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505216maxresident)k
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=6
1737.08user 143.94system 4:59.48elapsed 628%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505200maxresident)k
1730.31user 143.02system 4:58.75elapsed 627%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505152maxresident)k
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=8
2192.63user 169.34system 4:52.96elapsed 806%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505216maxresident)k
2219.04user 167.67system 4:53.19elapsed 814%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505152maxresident)k
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=10
2463.93user 184.98system 4:48.39elapsed 918%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505200maxresident)k
2455.62user 183.68system 4:47.40elapsed 918%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505216maxresident)k
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=12
2591.04user 192.64system 4:44.98elapsed 976%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505216maxresident)k
2581.23user 195.21system 4:47.51elapsed 965%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505212maxresident)k
-j20 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=20 [oversubscribe]
2613.18user 199.51system 4:44.06elapsed 990%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505216maxresident)k
Case (d), baseline (compared to case (b): only nvptx offloading compilation,
but also nvptx offloading execution); ~1 h:
2841.93user 653.68system 1:02:26elapsed 93%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 909792maxresident)k
2842.03user 654.39system 1:02:24elapsed 93%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 909880maxresident)k
Case (d), parallelized:
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=2
2856.39user 606.87system 33:58.64elapsed 169%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 909948maxresident)k
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=6
3444.90user 666.86system 18:37.57elapsed 367%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 909856maxresident)k
3462.13user 667.13system 18:36.87elapsed 369%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 909872maxresident)k
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=8
3929.74user 716.22system 18:02.36elapsed 429%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 909832maxresident)k
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=10
4152.84user 736.16system 17:43.05elapsed 459%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 909872maxresident)k
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=12
4209.60user 749.00system 17:35.20elapsed 469%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 909840maxresident)k
-j20 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=20 [oversubscribe]
4255.54user 756.78system 17:29.06elapsed 477%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 909868maxresident)k
Worth noting is that with nvptx offloading, there is one execution test case
that times out ('libgomp.fortran/reverse-offload-5.f90'). This effectively
stalls progress for almost 5 min: quickly other executions test cases queue up
on the lock for all parallel slots. That's working as expected; just noting
this as it accordingly does skew the wall time numbers.
PR testsuite/66005
libgomp/
* configure.ac: Look for 'flock'.
* testsuite/Makefile.am (gcc_test_parallel_slots): Enable parallel testing.
* testsuite/config/default.exp: Don't 'load_lib "standard.exp"' here...
* testsuite/lib/libgomp.exp: ... but here, instead.
(libgomp_load): Override for parallel testing.
* testsuite/libgomp-site-extra.exp.in (FLOCK): Set.
* configure: Regenerate.
* Makefile.in: Regenerate.
* testsuite/Makefile.in: Regenerate.
tschwinge
added a commit
to tschwinge/gcc
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 28, 2023
..., and enable if 'flock' is available for serializing execution testing.
Regarding the default of 19 parallel slots, this turned out to be a local
minimum for wall time when testing this on:
$ uname -srvi
Linux 4.2.0-42-generic gcc-mirror#49~14.04.1-Ubuntu SMP Wed Jun 29 20:22:11 UTC 2016 x86_64
$ grep '^model name' < /proc/cpuinfo | uniq -c
32 model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2640 v3 @ 2.60GHz
... in two configurations: case (a) standard configuration, no offloading
configured, case (b) offloading for GCN and nvptx configured but no devices
available. For both cases, default plus '-m32' variant.
$ \time make check-target-libgomp RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix\{,-m32\}"
Case (a), baseline:
6432.23user 332.38system 47:32.28elapsed 237%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505044maxresident)k
6382.43user 319.21system 47:06.04elapsed 237%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505172maxresident)k
This is what people have been complaining about, rightly so, in
<https://gcc.gnu.org/PR66005> "libgomp make check time is excessive" and
elsewhere.
Case (a), parallelized:
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=10
3088.49user 267.74system 6:43.82elapsed 831%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505188maxresident)k
-j15 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=15
3308.08user 294.79system 5:56.04elapsed 1011%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505360maxresident)k
-j17 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=17
3539.93user 298.99system 5:27.86elapsed 1170%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505112maxresident)k
-j18 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=18
3697.50user 317.18system 5:14.63elapsed 1275%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505360maxresident)k
-j19 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=19
3765.94user 324.27system 5:13.22elapsed 1305%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505128maxresident)k
-j20 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=20
3684.66user 312.32system 5:15.26elapsed 1267%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505100maxresident)k
-j23 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=23
4040.59user 347.10system 5:29.12elapsed 1333%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505200maxresident)k
-j26 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=26
3973.24user 377.96system 5:24.70elapsed 1340%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505160maxresident)k
-j32 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=32
4004.42user 346.10system 5:16.11elapsed 1376%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505160maxresident)k
Yay!
Case (b), baseline; 2+ h:
7227.58user 700.54system 2:14:33elapsed 98%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 994264maxresident)k
Case (b), parallelized:
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=10
7377.46user 777.52system 16:06.63elapsed 843%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 994344maxresident)k
-j15 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=15
8019.18user 721.42system 12:13.56elapsed 1191%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 994228maxresident)k
-j17 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=17
8530.11user 716.95system 10:45.92elapsed 1431%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 994176maxresident)k
-j18 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=18
8776.79user 645.89system 10:27.20elapsed 1502%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 994248maxresident)k
-j19 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=19
9332.37user 641.76system 10:15.09elapsed 1621%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 994260maxresident)k
-j20 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=20
9609.54user 789.88system 10:26.94elapsed 1658%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 994284maxresident)k
-j23 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=23
10362.40user 911.14system 10:44.47elapsed 1749%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 994208maxresident)k
-j26 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=26
11159.44user 850.99system 11:09.25elapsed 1794%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 994256maxresident)k
-j32 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=32
11453.50user 939.52system 11:00.38elapsed 1876%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 994240maxresident)k
On my Dell Precision 7530 laptop:
$ uname -srvi
Linux 5.15.0-71-generic gcc-mirror#78-Ubuntu SMP Tue Apr 18 09:00:29 UTC 2023 x86_64
$ grep '^model name' < /proc/cpuinfo | uniq -c
12 model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-8850H CPU @ 2.60GHz
$ nvidia-smi -L
GPU 0: Quadro P1000 (UUID: GPU-e043973b-b52a-d02b-c066-a8fdbf64e8ea)
... in two configurations: case (c) standard configuration, no offloading
configured, case (d) offloading for nvptx configured and device available.
For both cases, only default variant, no '-m32'.
$ \time make check-target-libgomp
Case (c), baseline; roughly half of case (a) (just one variant):
1180.98user 110.80system 19:36.40elapsed 109%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505148maxresident)k
1133.22user 111.08system 19:35.75elapsed 105%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505212maxresident)k
Case (c), parallelized:
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=2
1143.83user 110.76system 10:20.46elapsed 202%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505216maxresident)k
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=6
1737.08user 143.94system 4:59.48elapsed 628%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505200maxresident)k
1730.31user 143.02system 4:58.75elapsed 627%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505152maxresident)k
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=8
2192.63user 169.34system 4:52.96elapsed 806%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505216maxresident)k
2219.04user 167.67system 4:53.19elapsed 814%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505152maxresident)k
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=10
2463.93user 184.98system 4:48.39elapsed 918%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505200maxresident)k
2455.62user 183.68system 4:47.40elapsed 918%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505216maxresident)k
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=12
2591.04user 192.64system 4:44.98elapsed 976%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505216maxresident)k
2581.23user 195.21system 4:47.51elapsed 965%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505212maxresident)k
-j20 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=20 [oversubscribe]
2613.18user 199.51system 4:44.06elapsed 990%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505216maxresident)k
Case (d), baseline (compared to case (b): only nvptx offloading compilation,
but also nvptx offloading execution); ~1 h:
2841.93user 653.68system 1:02:26elapsed 93%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 909792maxresident)k
2842.03user 654.39system 1:02:24elapsed 93%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 909880maxresident)k
Case (d), parallelized:
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=2
2856.39user 606.87system 33:58.64elapsed 169%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 909948maxresident)k
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=6
3444.90user 666.86system 18:37.57elapsed 367%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 909856maxresident)k
3462.13user 667.13system 18:36.87elapsed 369%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 909872maxresident)k
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=8
3929.74user 716.22system 18:02.36elapsed 429%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 909832maxresident)k
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=10
4152.84user 736.16system 17:43.05elapsed 459%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 909872maxresident)k
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=12
4209.60user 749.00system 17:35.20elapsed 469%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 909840maxresident)k
-j20 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=20 [oversubscribe]
4255.54user 756.78system 17:29.06elapsed 477%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 909868maxresident)k
Worth noting is that with nvptx offloading, there is one execution test case
that times out ('libgomp.fortran/reverse-offload-5.f90'). This effectively
stalls progress for almost 5 min: quickly other executions test cases queue up
on the lock for all parallel slots. That's working as expected; just noting
this as it accordingly does skew the wall time numbers.
PR testsuite/66005
libgomp/
* configure.ac: Look for 'flock'.
* testsuite/Makefile.am (gcc_test_parallel_slots): Enable parallel testing.
* testsuite/config/default.exp: Don't 'load_lib "standard.exp"' here...
* testsuite/lib/libgomp.exp: ... but here, instead.
(libgomp_load): Override for parallel testing.
* testsuite/libgomp-site-extra.exp.in (FLOCK): Set.
* configure: Regenerate.
* Makefile.in: Regenerate.
* testsuite/Makefile.in: Regenerate.
(cherry picked from commit 6c3b30e)
tschwinge
added a commit
to tschwinge/gcc
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 28, 2023
..., and enable if 'flock' is available for serializing execution testing.
Regarding the default of 19 parallel slots, this turned out to be a local
minimum for wall time when testing this on:
$ uname -srvi
Linux 4.2.0-42-generic gcc-mirror#49~14.04.1-Ubuntu SMP Wed Jun 29 20:22:11 UTC 2016 x86_64
$ grep '^model name' < /proc/cpuinfo | uniq -c
32 model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2640 v3 @ 2.60GHz
... in two configurations: case (a) standard configuration, no offloading
configured, case (b) offloading for GCN and nvptx configured but no devices
available. For both cases, default plus '-m32' variant.
$ \time make check-target-libgomp RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix\{,-m32\}"
Case (a), baseline:
6432.23user 332.38system 47:32.28elapsed 237%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505044maxresident)k
6382.43user 319.21system 47:06.04elapsed 237%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505172maxresident)k
This is what people have been complaining about, rightly so, in
<https://gcc.gnu.org/PR66005> "libgomp make check time is excessive" and
elsewhere.
Case (a), parallelized:
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=10
3088.49user 267.74system 6:43.82elapsed 831%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505188maxresident)k
-j15 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=15
3308.08user 294.79system 5:56.04elapsed 1011%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505360maxresident)k
-j17 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=17
3539.93user 298.99system 5:27.86elapsed 1170%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505112maxresident)k
-j18 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=18
3697.50user 317.18system 5:14.63elapsed 1275%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505360maxresident)k
-j19 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=19
3765.94user 324.27system 5:13.22elapsed 1305%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505128maxresident)k
-j20 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=20
3684.66user 312.32system 5:15.26elapsed 1267%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505100maxresident)k
-j23 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=23
4040.59user 347.10system 5:29.12elapsed 1333%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505200maxresident)k
-j26 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=26
3973.24user 377.96system 5:24.70elapsed 1340%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505160maxresident)k
-j32 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=32
4004.42user 346.10system 5:16.11elapsed 1376%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505160maxresident)k
Yay!
Case (b), baseline; 2+ h:
7227.58user 700.54system 2:14:33elapsed 98%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 994264maxresident)k
Case (b), parallelized:
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=10
7377.46user 777.52system 16:06.63elapsed 843%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 994344maxresident)k
-j15 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=15
8019.18user 721.42system 12:13.56elapsed 1191%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 994228maxresident)k
-j17 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=17
8530.11user 716.95system 10:45.92elapsed 1431%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 994176maxresident)k
-j18 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=18
8776.79user 645.89system 10:27.20elapsed 1502%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 994248maxresident)k
-j19 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=19
9332.37user 641.76system 10:15.09elapsed 1621%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 994260maxresident)k
-j20 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=20
9609.54user 789.88system 10:26.94elapsed 1658%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 994284maxresident)k
-j23 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=23
10362.40user 911.14system 10:44.47elapsed 1749%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 994208maxresident)k
-j26 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=26
11159.44user 850.99system 11:09.25elapsed 1794%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 994256maxresident)k
-j32 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=32
11453.50user 939.52system 11:00.38elapsed 1876%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 994240maxresident)k
On my Dell Precision 7530 laptop:
$ uname -srvi
Linux 5.15.0-71-generic gcc-mirror#78-Ubuntu SMP Tue Apr 18 09:00:29 UTC 2023 x86_64
$ grep '^model name' < /proc/cpuinfo | uniq -c
12 model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-8850H CPU @ 2.60GHz
$ nvidia-smi -L
GPU 0: Quadro P1000 (UUID: GPU-e043973b-b52a-d02b-c066-a8fdbf64e8ea)
... in two configurations: case (c) standard configuration, no offloading
configured, case (d) offloading for nvptx configured and device available.
For both cases, only default variant, no '-m32'.
$ \time make check-target-libgomp
Case (c), baseline; roughly half of case (a) (just one variant):
1180.98user 110.80system 19:36.40elapsed 109%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505148maxresident)k
1133.22user 111.08system 19:35.75elapsed 105%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505212maxresident)k
Case (c), parallelized:
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=2
1143.83user 110.76system 10:20.46elapsed 202%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505216maxresident)k
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=6
1737.08user 143.94system 4:59.48elapsed 628%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505200maxresident)k
1730.31user 143.02system 4:58.75elapsed 627%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505152maxresident)k
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=8
2192.63user 169.34system 4:52.96elapsed 806%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505216maxresident)k
2219.04user 167.67system 4:53.19elapsed 814%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505152maxresident)k
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=10
2463.93user 184.98system 4:48.39elapsed 918%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505200maxresident)k
2455.62user 183.68system 4:47.40elapsed 918%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505216maxresident)k
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=12
2591.04user 192.64system 4:44.98elapsed 976%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505216maxresident)k
2581.23user 195.21system 4:47.51elapsed 965%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505212maxresident)k
-j20 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=20 [oversubscribe]
2613.18user 199.51system 4:44.06elapsed 990%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505216maxresident)k
Case (d), baseline (compared to case (b): only nvptx offloading compilation,
but also nvptx offloading execution); ~1 h:
2841.93user 653.68system 1:02:26elapsed 93%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 909792maxresident)k
2842.03user 654.39system 1:02:24elapsed 93%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 909880maxresident)k
Case (d), parallelized:
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=2
2856.39user 606.87system 33:58.64elapsed 169%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 909948maxresident)k
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=6
3444.90user 666.86system 18:37.57elapsed 367%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 909856maxresident)k
3462.13user 667.13system 18:36.87elapsed 369%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 909872maxresident)k
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=8
3929.74user 716.22system 18:02.36elapsed 429%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 909832maxresident)k
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=10
4152.84user 736.16system 17:43.05elapsed 459%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 909872maxresident)k
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=12
4209.60user 749.00system 17:35.20elapsed 469%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 909840maxresident)k
-j20 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=20 [oversubscribe]
4255.54user 756.78system 17:29.06elapsed 477%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 909868maxresident)k
Worth noting is that with nvptx offloading, there is one execution test case
that times out ('libgomp.fortran/reverse-offload-5.f90'). This effectively
stalls progress for almost 5 min: quickly other executions test cases queue up
on the lock for all parallel slots. That's working as expected; just noting
this as it accordingly does skew the wall time numbers.
PR testsuite/66005
libgomp/
* configure.ac: Look for 'flock'.
* testsuite/Makefile.am (gcc_test_parallel_slots): Enable parallel testing.
* testsuite/config/default.exp: Don't 'load_lib "standard.exp"' here...
* testsuite/lib/libgomp.exp: ... but here, instead.
(libgomp_load): Override for parallel testing.
* testsuite/libgomp-site-extra.exp.in (FLOCK): Set.
* configure: Regenerate.
* Makefile.in: Regenerate.
* testsuite/Makefile.in: Regenerate.
(cherry picked from commit 6c3b30e)
tschwinge
added a commit
to tschwinge/gcc
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 28, 2023
..., and enable if 'flock' is available for serializing execution testing.
Regarding the default of 19 parallel slots, this turned out to be a local
minimum for wall time when testing this on:
$ uname -srvi
Linux 4.2.0-42-generic gcc-mirror#49~14.04.1-Ubuntu SMP Wed Jun 29 20:22:11 UTC 2016 x86_64
$ grep '^model name' < /proc/cpuinfo | uniq -c
32 model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2640 v3 @ 2.60GHz
... in two configurations: case (a) standard configuration, no offloading
configured, case (b) offloading for GCN and nvptx configured but no devices
available. For both cases, default plus '-m32' variant.
$ \time make check-target-libgomp RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix\{,-m32\}"
Case (a), baseline:
6432.23user 332.38system 47:32.28elapsed 237%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505044maxresident)k
6382.43user 319.21system 47:06.04elapsed 237%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505172maxresident)k
This is what people have been complaining about, rightly so, in
<https://gcc.gnu.org/PR66005> "libgomp make check time is excessive" and
elsewhere.
Case (a), parallelized:
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=10
3088.49user 267.74system 6:43.82elapsed 831%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505188maxresident)k
-j15 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=15
3308.08user 294.79system 5:56.04elapsed 1011%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505360maxresident)k
-j17 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=17
3539.93user 298.99system 5:27.86elapsed 1170%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505112maxresident)k
-j18 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=18
3697.50user 317.18system 5:14.63elapsed 1275%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505360maxresident)k
-j19 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=19
3765.94user 324.27system 5:13.22elapsed 1305%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505128maxresident)k
-j20 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=20
3684.66user 312.32system 5:15.26elapsed 1267%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505100maxresident)k
-j23 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=23
4040.59user 347.10system 5:29.12elapsed 1333%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505200maxresident)k
-j26 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=26
3973.24user 377.96system 5:24.70elapsed 1340%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505160maxresident)k
-j32 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=32
4004.42user 346.10system 5:16.11elapsed 1376%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505160maxresident)k
Yay!
Case (b), baseline; 2+ h:
7227.58user 700.54system 2:14:33elapsed 98%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 994264maxresident)k
Case (b), parallelized:
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=10
7377.46user 777.52system 16:06.63elapsed 843%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 994344maxresident)k
-j15 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=15
8019.18user 721.42system 12:13.56elapsed 1191%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 994228maxresident)k
-j17 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=17
8530.11user 716.95system 10:45.92elapsed 1431%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 994176maxresident)k
-j18 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=18
8776.79user 645.89system 10:27.20elapsed 1502%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 994248maxresident)k
-j19 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=19
9332.37user 641.76system 10:15.09elapsed 1621%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 994260maxresident)k
-j20 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=20
9609.54user 789.88system 10:26.94elapsed 1658%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 994284maxresident)k
-j23 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=23
10362.40user 911.14system 10:44.47elapsed 1749%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 994208maxresident)k
-j26 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=26
11159.44user 850.99system 11:09.25elapsed 1794%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 994256maxresident)k
-j32 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=32
11453.50user 939.52system 11:00.38elapsed 1876%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 994240maxresident)k
On my Dell Precision 7530 laptop:
$ uname -srvi
Linux 5.15.0-71-generic gcc-mirror#78-Ubuntu SMP Tue Apr 18 09:00:29 UTC 2023 x86_64
$ grep '^model name' < /proc/cpuinfo | uniq -c
12 model name : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-8850H CPU @ 2.60GHz
$ nvidia-smi -L
GPU 0: Quadro P1000 (UUID: GPU-e043973b-b52a-d02b-c066-a8fdbf64e8ea)
... in two configurations: case (c) standard configuration, no offloading
configured, case (d) offloading for nvptx configured and device available.
For both cases, only default variant, no '-m32'.
$ \time make check-target-libgomp
Case (c), baseline; roughly half of case (a) (just one variant):
1180.98user 110.80system 19:36.40elapsed 109%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505148maxresident)k
1133.22user 111.08system 19:35.75elapsed 105%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505212maxresident)k
Case (c), parallelized:
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=2
1143.83user 110.76system 10:20.46elapsed 202%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505216maxresident)k
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=6
1737.08user 143.94system 4:59.48elapsed 628%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505200maxresident)k
1730.31user 143.02system 4:58.75elapsed 627%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505152maxresident)k
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=8
2192.63user 169.34system 4:52.96elapsed 806%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505216maxresident)k
2219.04user 167.67system 4:53.19elapsed 814%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505152maxresident)k
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=10
2463.93user 184.98system 4:48.39elapsed 918%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505200maxresident)k
2455.62user 183.68system 4:47.40elapsed 918%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505216maxresident)k
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=12
2591.04user 192.64system 4:44.98elapsed 976%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505216maxresident)k
2581.23user 195.21system 4:47.51elapsed 965%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505212maxresident)k
-j20 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=20 [oversubscribe]
2613.18user 199.51system 4:44.06elapsed 990%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 505216maxresident)k
Case (d), baseline (compared to case (b): only nvptx offloading compilation,
but also nvptx offloading execution); ~1 h:
2841.93user 653.68system 1:02:26elapsed 93%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 909792maxresident)k
2842.03user 654.39system 1:02:24elapsed 93%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 909880maxresident)k
Case (d), parallelized:
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=2
2856.39user 606.87system 33:58.64elapsed 169%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 909948maxresident)k
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=6
3444.90user 666.86system 18:37.57elapsed 367%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 909856maxresident)k
3462.13user 667.13system 18:36.87elapsed 369%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 909872maxresident)k
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=8
3929.74user 716.22system 18:02.36elapsed 429%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 909832maxresident)k
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=10
4152.84user 736.16system 17:43.05elapsed 459%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 909872maxresident)k
-j12 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=12
4209.60user 749.00system 17:35.20elapsed 469%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 909840maxresident)k
-j20 GCC_TEST_PARALLEL_SLOTS=20 [oversubscribe]
4255.54user 756.78system 17:29.06elapsed 477%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 909868maxresident)k
Worth noting is that with nvptx offloading, there is one execution test case
that times out ('libgomp.fortran/reverse-offload-5.f90'). This effectively
stalls progress for almost 5 min: quickly other executions test cases queue up
on the lock for all parallel slots. That's working as expected; just noting
this as it accordingly does skew the wall time numbers.
PR testsuite/66005
libgomp/
* configure.ac: Look for 'flock'.
* testsuite/Makefile.am (gcc_test_parallel_slots): Enable parallel testing.
* testsuite/config/default.exp: Don't 'load_lib "standard.exp"' here...
* testsuite/lib/libgomp.exp: ... but here, instead.
(libgomp_load): Override for parallel testing.
* testsuite/libgomp-site-extra.exp.in (FLOCK): Set.
* configure: Regenerate.
* Makefile.in: Regenerate.
* testsuite/Makefile.in: Regenerate.
(cherry picked from commit 6c3b30e)
NinaRanns
pushed a commit
to NinaRanns/gcc
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 20, 2025
…anups Contracts nonattr NFC cleanups
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.